RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LILLEHAUG, Justice.
RDNT, LLC asks us to hold that the City of Bloomington’s decision to deny RDNT’s conditional use permit application was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious, and to hold that the City did not properly consider RDNT’s proposed traffic-mitigating conditions. We hold that the City’s decision was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, as the City based its decision on a legally and factually sufficient ground: that the proposed use would be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise harm the public health, safety, and welfare. We also hold that the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of RosevilleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Zylka v. City of CrystalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
- Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of ChanhassenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Barton Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of AftonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- In re the Matter of: Dakota County, Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray GillespieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
- John D. Perschbacher, Relator (A15-0619), (A15-2002) v. Freeborn County Board of Commissioners, A15-619Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
- A23-0621 JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, USA Powerlifting Minnesota, on Related ...Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024
- Almir Puce v. City of Burnsville, MN., A21-0895, Supreme Court. September 28, 2023.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2023
- Arlin George Hatfield, III v. Madison County Board of SupervisorsMississippi Supreme Court · 2017
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.